This study in historical metrology was recently referenced in a paper by Nancy White: The Life, Legacy, and Love of Martha Rolingson, published in The Arkansas Archeologist ( 2006/2007, 47:83-93).  This issue of the journal is dedicated to Papers in Honor of Martha Rolingson and is a well-deserved tribute to Martha as an outstanding archaeologist and public educator.  Martha was one of the authors of the original Toltec Module publication.  Here's White's take on the Toltec Module and my critique if it:

            "After three and a half decades in Arkansas, Rolingson continues to have a big impact upon the field.  A recent issues of Southeastern Archaeology reflects this well.  One article, by Gregory Vogel (2006), challenges the model put forth by P. Clay Sherrod and Martha Rolingson in 1987 for a standardized measurement unit of 47.5 meters used in construction of mound centers such as Toltec.  Vogel does not agree with the idea of the Toltec module and believes that prehistoric natives probably did not use any standardized measurement system, but could still of course be sophisticated indigenes.  (We could ask him if he ever made a bookshelf or an article of clothing, even a Halloween costume from a sheet, without utilizing a measuring device in discrete units, and how it came out!)." (p. 91)

            White misses the mark on at least one important point of the article: I never argued that prehistoric people did not use a standardized measurement, simply that archaeological studies purporting to show that they did are fatally flawed.  In the abstract I write, "I propose that as it is currently formulated, the Toltec Module is untenable as a prehistoric unit of measurement" (p. 6).  In the Discussion and Conclusions section, "Perhaps measures were used, and perhaps they were not" (p. 18).  This is an important distinction: as difficult as it would be to demonstrate that prehistoric people used a standardized unit of measurement, demonstrating that they did not would be far more difficult, if not impossible. 

            More interesting to me, however, are White's questions concerning what I may or may not have constructed, and whether or not I used standardized measurements.  To answer directly: Yes, I have indeed made bookshelves, articles of clothing, and even Halloween costumes without utilizing a measuring device that marked discreet units. How did they come out? Here are a few examples:

            Minor woodworking has long been a hobby of mine, and I take great pleasure in working without tape measures or power tools.  (I consider most power tools to be loud, heavy, expensive, and dangerous; hand tools are quiet, light, cheap, and safe.)  I prefer to work without tape measures because my projects generally turn out better that way.  Instead of beginning with a blueprint or template I start with a generalized idea and begin cutting and assembling pieces from whatever lumber happens to be at hand.  When two or more pieces need to be the same size, I first cut one and use it as a template to draw lines directly onto the others.  When I do employ a tape measure, it serves only as a glorified piece of string to determine a relative measure: how much room is there in-between the bed and the wall to fit a nightstand?  Is this piece of lumber long enough to fit across the length of the window?  I have, in fact, used pieces of string for this purpose, often to far better effect than trying to find an exact increment match on a tape measure.  (One foot, three inches, and just the far side of the 11/16th mark...)

            I made the combination plant stand/CD shelf pictured below without recourse to standardized measurements.  The design was loosely based on a plant stand made long ago by my wife's grandfather.  I eyeballed the dimensions from the original piece, added one level to the stepped base, and left one side open for the CD shelves.  Not exactly Thomas Chippendale, but it certainly serves its purpose well enough.

(Click for larger image.)

            I have also long been interested in sewing and embroidery.  Below, for example, are two pairs of mittens I made for my wife.  Aside form purchasing the fabric by the yard, standardized measurements didn't come into play.  The first pair (on the left) I made as a Christmas present, so I surreptitiously measured her hands in relation to mine, then used my own hands as a relative template to cut the lining.  I eyeballed the rest of it: the angle the thumb should project from the rest of the mitten, the length and flare of the cuffs, the extra width of lining to take into account the three-dimensional nature of a hand, etc.  I cut the shells as sets of tops and bottoms to fit over the lining, added a narrow strip to join them along the medial or equatorial plane, and sewed complementary fabric over the seams of the cuffs.  I then lined the cuffs with velvet and added a few extra decorations like the faux French ribbon across the knuckles, and cinch-ties at the wrist.  My wife reports they fit just fine.  When the first pair began to wear out, I made the second pair as a replacement, slightly altering the dimensions and adding bells to the ends of the cinch-ties.  This second pair, I'm sad to report, do not fit quite so well.  I foresee more sewing in my future.

(Click for larger image.)

            As for Halloween costumes, I'm afraid it's been quite some time since I've made one of the bed-sheet variety.  If Nancy White had the ghost-with-two-eyes model in mind, employing a standardized unit of measurement seems a little spurious.  Although recall Charlie Brown's costume from The Great Pumpkin completely covered in eye-holes, "I had a little trouble with the scissors..." 

(Click for larger image.)

            For what it's worth, below is a picture of Michelle and me in costume at a pirate party a few years ago.  Certainly no standardized units of measurement in evidence here.  The straw tri-corner may be more isosceles than equilateral, but what the heck, it's not rocket science.  Or even cryptometrology.